IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 409 of 2010()
1. MANOJ, AGED 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. BIJU, AGED 30 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. K.SHAJ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 409 OF 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and
3 in Crime No.618 of 2009 of Sakthikulangara Police Station,
Kollam District.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 447 and 326 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that on 13.12.2009 at 6 PM, the
accused persons forcibly entered into the house of the de facto
complainant and attacked the de facto complainant and her
husband. It is stated that the de facto complainant and her husband
were attacked on account of the fact that the de facto complainant
married a person belonging to another community. It is stated that
the accused persons are the relatives of the de facto complainant.
The overt act alleged against the first petitioner (first accused) is that
he had beaten the husband of the de facto complainant with hands.
However, the overt act alleged against the second petitioner (third
B.A. NO. 409 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
accused) is that he hit on the face of the de facto complainant with a
brick and thereby she lost one tooth.
4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can not be granted in
favour of the second petitioner (third accused). If anticipatory bail is
granted to the second petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper
investigation of the case. More over, from the facts narrated above,
it is clear that the second petitioner (third accused) is not entitled to
the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, he having attacked a lady aged 25, resulting in the loss
of her tooth.
5. However, the case of the first petitioner (first accused)
stands on a different footing. The overt act alleged against him does
not relate to any of the serious injuries caused either on the de facto
complainant or on her husband. Therefore, I am inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the first petitioner (first accused).
6. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the
first petitioner (first accused), the officer in charge of the police
B.A. NO. 409 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for
Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following
conditions:
a) The first petitioner (first accused) shall report before the
investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on
alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until
further orders;
b) The first petitioner (first accused) shall appear before
the investigating officer for interrogation as and when
required;
c) The first petitioner (first accused) shall not try to
influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence;
d) The first petitioner (first accused) shall not commit any
offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on
bail;
e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the
second petitioner (third accused) and it is allowed in the manner
indicated above, in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (first
accused).
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/